Posts: 330
Threads: 21
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
10
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
Oooh, nice one! Getting hit by one of those will make your eyes water ......
Posts: 3,079
Threads: 50
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
20
Just a small point to consider. The spike tanged, single rivet type of pilum appears to have been a northern Italian style and and according to the theory advanced by Peter Connolly they may have been the type of pilum which Marius equipped his legions with at the end of the second century BC, as the known archaeological specimens date to that period and slightly earlier. Added to that, this was the very area that Marius used to train and equip his new army.
Connolly pointed out that despite Plutarch's reference to a baked wooden dowel designed to allow the head to fall sideways once used, excavated pile from the period in question generally feature two rivets and side flanges, indicating that they were expressly designed NOT to fall sideways. He reasoned therefore, that Plutarch had heard about Marius' use of a pilum with only a single rivet, and being familiar with pila featuring two rivets, tried to suggest the possible reason for the apparent absence of the second rivet in the account he had presumably read.
Be that as it may, bearing in mind that the type of head under discussion dates to the middle to late Republic, think very seriously before using them in a 1st century AD impression. The longer pila of the later 1st and 2nd centuries AD do feature spiked tangs but as far as I am aware, these do not feature a rivet through the tang.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Posts: 168
Threads: 21
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
0
So same thing minus rivet for 1st century AD?
Posts: 3,079
Threads: 50
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation:
20
Pretty much. The shanks of all the spike tanged single rivet pila I am aware of were, like other Republican period examples, not as long as those of the first and second centuries AD. The length of shank on the pilum shown in the first post is definitely early Imperial period rather than Republican, meaning that the single rivet is a definite 'retro'- feature. As far as I am aware, spike tanged pile of the early imperial period do not feature rivets.
However, given that Matt Lukes made it, I would not dismiss it out of hand. Matt pays considerable attention to accuracy and detail and I know he has a copy of Connolly's paper. Connolly published it about ten years ago though so there may have been new discoveries since then that Matt has obtained information on. A number of pila have come to light in the Balkans over the past few years and it may be that one of them featured a rivet.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Posts: 667
Threads: 22
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
0
Joe,
I would like to congratulate you on an expertly made pilum! The spike-tanged type pilum was, according to the evidence surveyed by Peter Connolly, "The Pilum from Marius to Nero: A Reconsideration of Its Development and Function," JRMES 12/13 (2001/2002), 1–8, the dominant type during the Principate. The hugely prevalent among the re-enactors (depicting the 1st c. C.E.) broad-tanged type, also often called the Oberaden type, pila may actually, as Connolly notes, "have been phased out well before the end of the Julio-Claudian period." So your pilum seems to be the representative type of the period.
Regarding the rivet, Connolly mentions the rivet in the beginning the discussion of the type (in the context of Alesia). Discussing later examples, Connolly does not mention the absence of the rivet, which, I would think, would be an important constructional feature to note if its absence were actually clearly established. Instead, he keeps referring to the type as "the spike-tanged type with its single rivet."
Several drawings provided in the article show a hole for the rivet (either intact or still recognizable when the tang degraded below the rivet hole). There are also drawings that show no rivet hole. But can we be sure that the rivet-less drawings are absolutely accurate depictions of the artifact, as Connolly reused the drawings made by others? For example, the drawing of an example from Haltern (Fig. 4,5) does not show a hole in the tang, whereas Connolly's reconstruction of that pilum (Fig. 6) has it. Also, can we be sure that the artist has not shown the original from the side perpendicular to the existing rivet hole? And could it be that the tang corroded or was damaged and, and the hole is no longer visible?
Other evidence attests to existence of such pila with a hole in the tang in the imperial context. Thus, Ivan Radman-Livaja, Militaria Sisciensia, Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et Monographiae, vol. 1 (Zagreb, 2005), 25–26, lists six pila found in the Kupa river near Sisak, Croatia, that date to the Roman conquest of Panonnia. Five of them have their tang preserved, and there is a hole in the tang in every instance.
But if indeed such clear rivet-less examples are known (perhaps Paul could point them out?), I would be curios to learn how the tang was secured in the shaft in those instances. According to Matt Lukes, who has made many pila of the type, the rivet is essential to hold the tang securely in the shaft. If there is no rivet–what then?
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF
quando omni flunkus, mortati
